It is plain old rationalization, classic affirmation of the consequent. Which, of course, is not plausible at all; here we are.

Yeah, not really. Taken as a whole, it DOES imply, as Monty Python put it, "every sperm is sacred," providing a good basis for prohibiting contraception and MALE homosexuality (and masturbation.) The closest it comes to abortion is setting an "eye for an eye" penalty if fighting men strike a pregnant woman (but that is assaulting her as much as the fetus) and condemning invaders genocidally ripping open the bellies of pregnant women (but that murders women whether or not it murders a child.)


Yes, but the naïve parochial notion kids will not have sex as long as no one tells them about it is common. Even though the most plausible reading of Genesis is that the very first two humans found out on their own.

That said, I dispute that we live in a "rape culture." We live in a SEX culture that convinces some people they are entitled to sex whether or not consensual, and encourages manipulating consent whether or not someone is competent to give it. To a great extent sex ed opposition is a reaction AGAINST that, not in support of it.

So was a Midwestern Republican congressmans reminiscence that his father warned, "some girls rape easy:" That neither glorified nor condoned rape, but cautioned against casual CONSENSUAL sex, because false rape accusations are all too real. Sometimes it is a Catch 22; young girls whose parents constantly condemn pre-marital sex are predisposed to call consensual sex rape if it is revealed (e.g. by their pregnancy.) Noting that neither condones rape nor dismisses any rape accusations: It implicitly acknowledges all rape accusations should and will be taken seriously, so the best defense against false ones is restricting sex to committed long term relationships, not shouting, "LIAR!" at a woman whose name the accused does not even know. Telling people not avoid sex is not encouraging rape.


Technically, most Republicans nominally (just not actually) support abortion to save a womans life. That is why Walshs comment is so exceptional, but even he did not TECHNICALLY say he opposes abortion to save a womans life: He said there is no such thing, so federal law should ban all abortions (EFFECTIVELY forbidding abortions to save a womans life, the factual existence of which Walsh denies.)

I agree that ignores mothers and wives "traditional" families need, but too many extreme pro-lifers are convinced no one but unwed whores want an abortion. They just, y'know, try hard not to publicly say so—until this year.


I recall no case of the bible advocating abortion to save a mothers life, so please do share. Strictly within the biblical context, marriage almost invariably had a strong (but not solely) religious element. It also frequently had a polygamous (or at least polygynous) element, but there is no legal OR religious basis for banning that. Polygamy is prohibited because of an "ick" factor evidently no longer as strong for homosexuals, which I suppose is a kind of victory for the latter.

You make a good point about the procreation motive behind bans on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. I agree that was the crux of them, but it may not be as obsolete as most suspect. In most of the West birth rates have fallen well below replacement levels, but they remain well above that level in countries that make Pat Robertson seem positively enlightened by comparison. That sets the stage for a global "culture war" dwarfing anything in US politics, one that has already begun.


I am the last person to deny anyone a good (or bad) rant.